Columnist Michelle Malkin writes in the Washington Times about how delicately we describe illegal immigrants, and by "we," I mean the Washington Post:

Ingmar Guandique, a violent Salvadoran national who is serving a 10-year sentence for assaulting two female joggers in Washington's Rock Creek Park last year, was interrogated recently as part of the investigation into the [Chandra Levy] intern murder mystery. But in my review of all 115 news items archived in the Lexis-Nexis database that mention Guandique in connection with the Levy case, not a single story referred to his status as a criminal illegal alien. The Associated Press described Guandique merely as an "immigrant"; the New York Times called him a "Washington man." On the basic questions of where Guandique came from, how he got here and how he managed to stay, The Washington Post -- the mainstream media giant closest to the scene of Guandique's crimes -- has printed nothing at all. Though Guandique reportedly passed lie detector tests, he remains an unofficial person of interest in the Levy case....

You know, I've never heard of this guy, though I don't usually go hunting for Chandra Levy stories in the Post or anywhere else. But as far as immigrant status is concerned, it's clear that many influential people, definitely including reporters, simply don't see the need to distinguish between citizens and everyone else. It's all one big happy continent. I'll tell you what else, I wish I could get a transcript of a Hannity & Colmes interview a couple of weeks ago with Mexican President Vincente Fox. I knew he was interested in relaxing border controls and making life easier for his emigrants, but I didn't know his sense of things is to virtually abolish the border, or that he sees it as Mexico's right to transfer as many of its people to U.S. as it pleases, without end.